Kolkata Appellate Court January 2011 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Smt. Krishna Das Vs. Santana Modak and anr
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-12-2011
1. The petitioner in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India dated August 19, 2010 is the plaintiff in Title Suit No.138 of 2000, pending on the file of the 1st Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Chinsurah, Hooghly. The suit is for specific performance of a contract and injunction. The defendants in the suit are contesting it by filing written statement.2. The stage for recording evidence having reached, the petitioner filed a petition dated June 2, 2010 under Order 26 Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code (hereafter the Code) read with section 151 thereof. On the ground of her illness, the petitioner prayed before the Trial Court for appointment of a learned advocate as commissioner to record her oral evidence. 3. The petition was taken up for consideration by the Trial Court on July 6, 2010. The plea of the petitioner that she was ill and that it is practically impossible for her to remain personally present in Court and depose before it was disbelieved. The pet...
Headmaster, Asansol Chowalal Madhyamik Vidyalaya and anr. Vs. Ram Nare ...
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-12-2011
1. The opposite party is eligible to be inducted in the Managing Committee of Asansol Chowalal Madhyamik Vidyalaya (hereafter the school) in the capacity of a life member. He instituted a suit, registered as Title Suit no.59/2010, in the 1st Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) at 2Asansol, Burdwan for declaration and injunction on the ground that election of the candidate in the category of person interested in education for induction in the Managing Committee of the school is defective. The relief claimed in the suit reads as follows : a) for declaration that the election process conducted by the current Managing Committee of the Asansol Chowalal Madhyamic Vidyala is illegal wrongful and ulterires as the same has been conducted is gross violation of rules framed under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act. b) for permanent injunction restraining the present managing committee to reconstitute the Managing Committee without the process of law. c) for all cost of the su...
Adu Mirja Vs. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. and ...
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-12-2011
1. The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated September 15, 2010 is seeking a mandamus commanding the respondents to restore his service through a new transformer, since the transformer through which he was getting supply of electricity for operating his lawfully installed submersible pump was stolen on May 8, 2010. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the provisions of regs.9 and 15 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Standards of Performance of Licensees Relating to Consumer Services) Regulations, 2010 the licensee is liable to restore the service at once and pay compensation for its failure to restore the service within the statutory period. 3. Counsel for the licensee has submitted as follows. On the basis of information of the theft supplied by the petitioner the Station Manager, Bethuadahari Gr.E/S in Nadia lodged an FIR with the Nakashipara police station in Nadia on May 10, 2010. The licensee may not be saddled with the liability of compens...
Piyush Gupta Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-12-2011
1. The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated January 7, 2011 is seeking the following principal relief: a) A writ of mandamus or a writ in the same nature thereof commanding the Respondents, particularly the Respondent No.2 to correct the wrong date of birth of the petitioner as 13.09.1989 mentioned in the passport of the petitioner being No.F6734000 and in-corporated his actual date of birth as 10.06.1989 in the said passport. 2. The second respondent is the Regional Passport Officer, Kolkata to whom the petitioner submitted a representation dated December 3, 2010 (at p.21). Relevant parts of the representation are quoted below: I am Piyush Gupta, son of Todarmal Gupta, permanent resident of 2016, Boral Main Road, Jaya Apartment Block-II, 2nd floor, Garia, Kolkata 84. Your office issued a passport being No.F6734000 in my name as per my application validly of the said passport is from 04.04.2006 to 03.04.2011. in that passport my date of birth is mentioned 13.09.1989. Whereas my ...
Baidyanath Ray Vs. Smt. Suvra Ray Nee HazrA.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-11-2011
1. Challenge is to the order no.8 dated December 6, 2008 passed by the learned Judge, Fast Track First Court, Barrackpore in Matrimonial Suit No.649 of 2008. The husband/petitioner filed the said suit under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the learned District Judge, North 24 Parganas at Barasat. That suit was transferred to the learned Fast Track First Court at Barrackpore for disposal. In that suit, the wife/opposite party appeared and filed an application praying for alimony. That application was allowed directing the husband/petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,700/- per month as maintenance of the wife and her son and a litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-. Being aggrieved by the said order of alimony, the husband has come up with this revisional application. Now, the point for consideration is whether the impugned order should be sustained.2. Upon hearing the learned Advocate for the petitioner and on going through the materials on record, I find that the wife has claimed that the...
D. G. Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Tanmoy Banerjee.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-11-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the defendant/respondent and is directed against the order dated August 20, 2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fifteenth Court, Alipore in Misc. Appeal No.43 of 2010 arising out of the Title Suit No.5 of 2010.2. The plaintiff/opposite party filed a title suit being Title Suit No.5 of 2010 for partition and other reliefs and in that suit, the plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction. The plaintiff moved the petition for temporary injunction but the learned Trial Judge [learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baruipur, District South 24 Pargnas] issued a notice of show cause but did not grant any ad interim injunction. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff filed the misc. appeal being Misc. Appeal No.43 of 2010 which was disposed of by the learned Additional District Judge, Fifteenth Court, Alipore granting an order of status quo upon both the parties with a direction to dispose of the application for temporary injunctio...
Dibyendu Ghorai. Vs. Khagendra Nath Pradhan and anr.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-11-2011
1. Challenge is to the order dated July 16, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Third Court, Paschim Medinipur in Other Suit No.102 of 2007 thereby rejecting an application for restoration of possession and another application for injunction at the instance of the plaintiff.2. The plaintiff instituted the said title suit for declaration and injunction against the defendants/opposite parties claiming himself to be a tenant under the defendant/opposite party no.1. One shop room is the premises in suit and the plaintiff contended that he is a monthly tenant at the rate of Rs.610/- per month payable to Bengali calendar month. He has been running a readymade garments shop in that premises in suit. He has also been paying the monthly rents regularly to the defendant no.1. When the plaintiff offered rent for the month of Bhadra, 1414 B.S. to the defendant no.1/opposite party, he refused to receive the same and he insisted the plaintiff/petitioner to quit and vacate the s...
Dakshina Ranjan Bhattacharya Vs. Sri Ashok Das.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-11-2011
1. Challenge is to the order dated November 10, 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Third Court, Alipore in Ejectment Suit No.195 of 2006 thereby allowing an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The short fact is that the plaintiff/petitioner herein instituted a suit for eviction of a tenant and other reliefs on the ground of default, violation of the provisions of (m), (o) and (p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act. The defendant is contesting the said suit. In that suit, the defendant/opposite party filed an application under Section 10 of the C.P.C. for stay of the suit stating, inter alia, that one other suit being O.S. No.7 of 2006 is pending between the plaintiff and Gouri Debi and others for determination of the title of the premises in suit and the defendant got a lawyers notice on behalf of one Pankaj Bhattacharya and others to the effect the defendant/tenant need not make any payment of rent in respect of the premise...
Sri Pankaj Roy. Vs. Smt. Ratnabali Ghosh.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-11-2011
1. This application is directed against the judgment dated November 26, 2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Second Court, Sealdah in Civil Revision Case No.3 of 2007 allowing the civil revisional application with costs by way of setting aside the order dated January 29, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Sealdah in Title Suit No.67 of 2003.2. The short fact is that the plaintiff instituted the said suit for declaration, permanent injunction and other reliefs before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Sealdah. Amongst other reliefs, the plaintiff has sought for decree for payment of Rs.3,63,103.31 paisa. The defendant/opposite party herein appeared and he is contesting the said suit by filing a written statement. The defendant raised the question of territorial jurisdiction on the ground that the suit property is situated at Santiniketan within the District of Birbhum whereas the suit had been filed for the reliefs already s...
Nakul Chandra Paul Vs. the State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-11-2011
1) The challenge in this revision is to the judgement and order dated 30.8.2004 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 2nd Court, Tamluk in Sessions Trial No. 1(2) 2004/S.C No. 9(1) 2004 whereby and whereunder the learned Judge acquitted the opposite party no. 2 Swapan Das from the charge punishable under Section 376 of I.P.C.2) Nakul Chandra Paul, the de facto complainant of the case, has taken out this application praying for setting aside of the judgement and order which have been impugned on the following grounds :a) that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record on its proper perspective and background ;b) that the learned Trial Court erred in coming to a conclusion that the prosecutrix had consent to the sexual intercourse with the respondent no. 2 and, as such, the alleged sexual intercourse is not a rape within the definition of 375 of the I.P.C ;c) that the learned Trial Court made some observations which altogether ha...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »